While we're very happy to have you in the Gulch and appreciate your wanting to fully engage, some things in the Gulch (e.g. voting, links in comments) are a
privilege, not a right. To get you up to speed as quickly as possible, we've provided two options for earning these privileges.
- You must reach a Gulch score of 100. You can earn points in the Gulch by posting content, commenting, or by other members voting up your posts.
- You may upgrade to a Galt's Gulch Producer membership to immediately gain these privileges.
Your current Gulch score:
Good success with the deadline.
Criteria such as race, gender, sex, and national origin (excluding those countries with whom we are at war) are not rational criteria for restricting access. As Rand herself states, such criteria are "the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism. It is the notion of ascribing moral, social, or political significance to a man's genetic lineage..."
This quote spoke specifically to race, but it still applies when dealing with other characteristics that are not choice-based (don't start the transgendered discussion here please).
Finally, since we have freedom of religion here, restricting access based on religion, as so many are proposing lately, would be contrary not only to our constitution, but to our very founding principles.
Never would the Founding Fathers have comsidered Islam as a viable option to protect.
The thought would have been foreign to them...especially considering what they had to battle against on the Barbary Coast.
As to what the battles with the Barbary States, those were after the creation of the U.S. and as such can't be used to support a claim that it influenced what they considered protected by the constitution. It should also be noted that the actions which occurred along the Barbary Coast were the result of privacy not of religious origin. Also that the first nation to formally and publicly recognize the United States of America as a soverign nation was the muslim nation of Morocco - on the states along the Barbary Coast.
Indeed it can, and has been, argued that your assertion is the inverse of the known history. For example, John Locke said "neither Pagan nor Mahamedan nor Jew ought to be excluded from the civil rights of the Commonwealth because of his religion." where "Mahamedan" is what we now refer to as Muslim. Jefferson himself referenced this in his work. Notable also is that Jefferson owned a copy of the Qu'ran for a decade prior to writing the founding documents, so to imply he wasn't well versed on it borders on absurdity in my opinion as he was known to be a very intellectually minded man. Jefferson was not a "fan" of the religion, but that didn't stop him from advocating strongly and publicly that they should not be treated as less than Christians or Jews based on their religion.
Washington, also, specifically noted Muslism were considered on par with Christians when he wrote to a friend that a person's religious beliefs are not of consideration in hiring: “If they are good workmen, they may be of Asia, Africa, or Europe. They may be Mahometans, Jews or Christian of an Sect, or they may be Atheists.” Note as well he also specifically mentions atheists as well.
Where people often go wrong with a surface review of the available material is in mis-applying the sentiments expressed. Often many of the founders, to include signatories in the ratification of the constitution, express their doubt that a Muslim, Jew, or Atheist would be elected. This is not the same as preventing (or "not protecting") them.
Where people of today go wrong is in conflating tolerance for a given religious belief or non-belief as the same as accepting or equating it. Religion isn't the only area today's society has this problem in, but it is a pretty big one. When you review the period's literature they speak of actions making the difference, not beliefs. They had been religiously persecuted and thus knew what it was like to be put down, to be excluded, and to be attacked based not on their actions but instead on their beliefs.
A belief, like a gun, does nothing it can not act in it's own. The founding fathers through their actions and words demonstrate an understanding of this fact, and separate a person's beliefs from their actions. To claim religious liberty was intended to only apply to Christians and Jews is to ignore the facts of the era and apply personal desire by conversion of statements from one category to another. Conversely those who argue that the FF actually sought out to include and incorporate Islam or Muslisms are making the very same mistakes and fallacies.
The question before us now, however, is not about religion as such, and not the First Amendment, but the anti-American ideology and zealotry of non-citizens seeking to exploit, infiltrate and destroy us. The First Amendment does not and should not prevent us from identifying the ideology of enemies of the country and keeping them out. Muslims from the mideast would have to demonstrate that they don't take their religion seriously, for the same reason that Ben Carson (properly) said he could not support a Muslim as president of the US. We have no obligation to take in swarms of refugees, whether legitimate or not, because of their "need" and regardless to the threat to our country. With the terrorism, wars, and spread of Islam in its ideological war against civilization as such, it has never been more important to recognize the importance of ideas and their consequences, and act accordingly on all fronts. Floating abstractions claiming "freedom of religion" on behalf of "refugees" -- such as the recent demagoguery from the Obama who hates the 'tea party' far more than he opposes Islamo fascism -- are not an excuse to sacrifice us.
However, modern Islam and the consequent jihad being waged in the world today has evolved out of the Muslim Brotherhood which was organized in the 1920's.
They have brought a return of the primitive to the Middle East...and the FF would definitely have resisted any return to the primitive.
The FF would never invite any potential enemy to establish a foothold that would lead to the demise of our country.
The question now is: Will our integrity be used against us to take our nation down because we won't say "no" to a potential threat because the First Ammendment guarantees that we obey our own rules instead of thinking this through?
I agree that the FF would oppose the extremists in Islam today. However, I see nothing tenable to suggest they would prevent any and all Muslims from coming in to do so. Indeed looking at how they didn't exclude the British after the war, a proven existential threat to the newborn nation, I'd say the evidence weighs against such a notion.
I think that your statement hinges on who are "potential enemies". In evaluating prospective immigrants, it is critical to find an optimized way of identifying the potential enemies, before they are allowed the residency. Can it be done? I would think yes. It is costly, though.
It is important to realize that we need to protect what we have and after all these years of endless wars of attrition in the Middle East it should be clear to anyone who has been there that this "crisis" and our answer to it isn't viable for this country.
I'm assuming there would be no problem with the three non muslim groups or at least two of them not sure about Christians but contacting the Bahai Church would take care of that question here in the USA.
I think that it is important to point out that speech, which can be understood as an action, was explicitly protected by the FF. I think the importance if this is particularly evident in current atmosphere in our country.
Jan
Whilst I oppose religious rule of any stripe, and the non-extremists need to do a better job at conmbating their extremists factions' ideologies, tarring the many with the the actions of the few is in my view a form of collectivism.
If "religious freedom" has morphed into: "The freedom to use your religious beliefs to end the lives of others" we are in trouble in this nation.
Self-protection is vital when considering the entry of these particular refugees.
As my husband says: "President Obama, please house them in the White House if you think that this is a good idea."
IMHO, Islam is not a religion, it's a governing body. The Koran being it's Constitution or it's complete set of rules and regulations for the life of the people that participate willingly or unwillingly. Therefore I believe our founders could not have accepted it because it does not allow for the freedom of or from religion.
"How do you exclude them when we ourselves refused to live up to the morals, values, and principals of our country."
"But the Constitu....."
"Was replaced by an overwhelming popular vote with the Patriot Act."
"But our founders?"
"We are not our founders. We are the one's who shat on their legacy. And voted King George back into office."
"George Bush?"
"Amongst others. George Soros and George Lakoff fo rtwo others."
"But surely you don't mean...."
"Don't I? Same Sex Marriage ring a bell. Fine where it was voted in locally but then it became law of the land. How many states voted in favor of that amendment?"
And since it was made natinal law by one Judge how many States demanded a vote to make any changes? Such as making it an amendment?"
"None..."
"That's right."
"So whee are you going?"
"Moving to FNA Free North America."
"Got any room?"
"Hop in."
IMHO you are correct, well at least our leaders are not following the Constitution. It basically is not even considered by most. Many of us people still consider it the law of the land.
Don't get me started on the Patriot Act. I was one of the few that questioned how, in America was that acceptable the day GW signed it into law. We learned quickly how bad it is.
I wish for a FNA.
For me, the more thought I put into Islam the more I believe it to be a government, not a religion. Or to take a tactic from the left, if you say it enough it becomes the truth. That's my story and I'm sticking to it. :)
The word "barbarians" refers to those who dwelt on the Barbary Coast.
I understand the people who believe in Islam refer to it simply as "Islam" not the religion of Islam, so I would contend that the believers do not even consider it a Religion. It is entirely possible that the word Religion was added by non-believers as a way to describe it. But I am no expert in this and maybe someone this site could shed some light on my theory. I may have to post the subject. :)
It is a system of belief in a deity and has rules on behavior, a belief in the afterlife, and a coming day of judgment. That is a religion. It is organized, has a holy city, and scriptures and prayers. It is an organized religion.
I know, we as a society like to think religion is about being good, but not all are. It is the cognitive dissonance of being confronted with a religion that is so different from the modern versions of Christianity and Judaism which leads us to not want to consider it a religion. But the adjustment is in understanding not all religions are minor variations of the same. That is the proper path to removing the dissonance, not redefining words.
If modern Christians were transported to the Middle Ages and the Catholic Church of that era they'd be mortified at what it was. After all ...
The Inquisition, what a show!
The more I consider the Catholic religion, the more I believe it to be a government as well, since they have their own city that is basically governed from within. Also until recently, the same rules applied inside the religion in other countries too. But at least the current Christian Religions are not advocates of death, although some of their beliefs may not be in the individuals best interest. But that is just my opinion.
There is one passage in Islam's bible (Koran), governing rules or whatever term we use for it, that concerns me the most. That is the passage that suggest that believers in Islam blend with society until they are in a position of power and at that point they are to kill all infidels. This is not a quote of the passage as I do not have that at my fingertips but it was taught to me during a class put on by an Egyptian Christian that translated the Koran. Was he telling the truth? I could never say for sure because I cannot translate an original Koran but believe what he shared has to be considered. But in no way do I consider myself an expert on this subject. As I have stated in another comment, I think we need to take a page from the progressives book and start calling it a government instead of a religion. If you say it enough it will be come truth and then it can be dealt with. (said somewhat tongue in cheek)
But truthfully I do not know what to believe on the subject and in reality, I simply want to know the truth about Islam and the Koran. I want to know if I can turn my back on a believer of Islam and currently I cannot do that. This is why these discussions are so good.
They are not the same thing.
Best of luck and much success.
Regards,
O.A.
That would mean, the only reason to come to this country would be for a job...or to kill us.
Since killing us would be stepping on our individual liberties, a Libertarian would be against that.
The next question is, does a libertarian believe in profiling?
That sounds more like a liberal, not a libertarian.
"911"
"Someone just robbed my store at gunpoint."
"Any distinguishing features?"
"He was a redhaired white dude with a Malmo accent. Spoke English with a Swedish Accent.
OR
None that I'm allowed to give.
OR
Liberal and a Defense Attorney if I profiled the offending remark on the grounds of looking for a way to get the charges quashed or a mistrial declared.
Rounding up Japanese during ww2 is very different than not allowing unvetted refugees from the Middle East in,especially after what happen in France.
Or, alternatively, that Midas Mulligan set up the rules for the operation of what was essentially a country given that he had, by virtue of owning the property, the right to direct it's use. That once this was done the inhabitants could, subject to his 'constitution' determine their own rules.
If the former, it's not a very attractive place, and the latter a country.
I do not have a problem with my state's stand against O'Shaftus's next immigration invasion plan either.
The following translation is brought to you by Google Translate. Any errors are on them. Not me. Not ever. No, I don't need no stinking blame!
Much thanks, mister. Now give me more free stuff. Hey, why do you not understand the words that come out of my mouth? No, I don't need no stinking English!
As for your two favorites. Both Reublican both support the Rino Majority by being Republican both supporters therefore of left wing socialist fascism. The rest is just excuses.
There is no collective "right" of the cultural, religious, or racial majority to restrict those who are different from them from seeking employment from their neighbors who do not have the same hang ups.
Well it's still all the collateral they have. As a thought how much is ANWAR worth with it's oil deposits? The nation really is bankrupt. There is no full faith and credit which didn't mean anything anyway. Most of it will be scrub land. and I doubt Washington DC is worth that much.
I make it $29,921 and twenty six cents. That's a lot of inflation However if the land was sold privately it would bring in some property tax. Not much to say for 240 years of investing.
Last I did the figures it was $10,000 an acre with full property rights - even sovereignty rights wouldn't work.
No gold, no land, no collateral, no faith, no credit. pretty dismal picture with nothing but inflation, devaluation and debt repudiation to count on. That's not counting all the squandered tax money we involuntarily loaned the government.
Might be a way to start up a new country though. CHina would get Guam, Hawaii, and Alaska.perhaps.
Big problem with western lands is California. LA for example. Who could afford the water bill?.
So how do you engineer land value to average $30,000 an acre? Or would the debt holder except 33 cents on the dollar which brings it down to $10,000 an acre?
Fictional analysis. But I'm suddenly reminded of France when they did the old Francs new francs devaluation. One New Franc was worth ten old Francs in printed and minted money. The prices remained the same but the salaries were paid in new francs....
How about the new SW Texas oil reserves or the offshore stuff?
Hate to say it but the only way the US could afford a house is mandatory loans to unqualified borrowers.I guess we would need Frank and Dodd back to explain how they rigged that one.
I agree. It is a rational approach to a very knotty problem.
Citizenship is a different question entirety, though.
http://livingclean.com/unbelievable-a...
I'm thinking, though, that any such proposed new state should be pretty small (as the Gulch was and as most primitive tribes were). This is primarily because most versions of libertarianism would rely heavily, if not entirely, on the mechanism of reputation in order to stop fraud and some kinds of theft -- and reputation stops working once you live in a society large enough that you can effectively disappear, at will, without losing your possessions or your lifestyle to do it. I'm thinking any "Gulch" should be limited to around 150 families. If it gets bigger it should split itself.
This would imply some sort of federation in order to produce a state large enough to be capable of defending itself in the modern world.
I don't see it as worthwhile for anybody now living, but I might donate to an effort to start the terraforming process.